I didn't say Muslims in general. I very specifically stated the Indian Mujahadeen. Please respect the precision of the words I chose, it was of a specific organization so as to hold the entire Muslim community responsible for the acts of one fundamentalist outfit. (Just as the entire Buddhist community should not be pilloried for the bad behaviour of some Buddhists within Burma).

JKhedrup wrote:I didn't say Muslims in general. I very specifically stated the Indian Mujahadeen. Please respect the precision of the words I chose, it was of a specific organization so as to hold the entire Muslim community responsible for the acts of one fundamentalist outfit. (Just as the entire Buddhist community should not be pilloried for the bad behaviour of some Buddhists within Burma).

Right, but then you spent some time trying to point out that Islam might be uniquely capable of creating these kind of abhorrent behaviors, unless I misread you.

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

Where did I write "uniquely capable". You are arguing against a statement I never made.

That is why I specifically mentioned that it is silly to argue against Christian Dominionist Fundamentalism (like many Liberals) and then refuse to point out the problems within Fundamentalist Islam (which actually does run several governments).

If people are going to argue against statements I never made it makes it very hard to have a rational discussion. It is good to quote eachother's points when discussions get heated.

Where did I write "uniquely capable". You are arguing against a statement I never made.

That is why I specifically mentioned that it is silly to argue against Christian Dominionist Fundamentalism (like many Liberals) and then refuse to point out the problems within Fundamentalist Islam (which actually does run several governments).

If people are going to argue against statements I never made it makes it very hard to have a rational discussion. It is good to quote eachother's points when discussions get heated.

Yes I did read it.

If it's heated for you sorry, I don't feel that way. It wasn't a direct quote because I thought it seemed fairly obvious by the inclusion of a book like "The Trouble With Islam" (not to take away from the merit of the book either, it looks very interesting) that you were wanting to bolster an argument about the exceptional nature of Islamic Terrorism, and I simply don't think it's exceptional,and I don't think the roots of the ugly bits of modern Islam are deeply tied to theology as they are to other things. If your point was something else, then sorry I misread it.

Who refuses to point out the flaws of Fundamentalist Islam while pointing out the flaws of Christian dominionism?

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

My point was, if you are going to argue against straw man statements I never made, the discussion devolves into a heated one pretty quickly (as we have seen from pretty much any thread on this topic). I would rather the thread not get shut down as this is a topic that is very important in the Buddhist world at the moment and we should be able to discuss it.

I mentioned Christian Fundamentalism and Islamic Fundamentalism in the same breath so that statements such as your "uniquely capable" one could be prevented. It seems whenever a legitimate question about the role of Islamic theology in the terrorist activities of some Muslim organizations is mentioned people try to shut down the discussion by saying that all religions could be used in that way. The statement was made to indicate I would criticize such Christian fundamentalism readily, especially if it led to violence.

It wasn't a direct quote because I thought it seemed fairly obvious by the inclusion of a book like "The Trouble With Islam" that you were wanting to bolster an argument about the exceptional nature of Islamic Terrorism, and I simply don't think it's exceptional.

Please google the book before making assumptions. It is written by Irshad Manji, a thinking Muslim woman and human rights activist, and is nuanced and sophisticated. Not a hatchet job at all.

Who refuses to point out the flaws of Fundamentalist Islam while pointing out the flaws of Christian dominionism?

Many members of the academic community and students at universities. Concordia was shut down a few years ago because some students could not bear to hear the other side of the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. (For the record, I think the govt. of Isreal's conduct in Palestine is terrible, but I think the other side should be heard.) When it comes to the issue of Islamic fundamentalism the there is a real lack of academic freedom. Concordia comes to mind, as does the case of Professor Diana L. Eck (whose books I enjoy), ousting respected academic Prof. Subramanian Swamy.

I would speak against any one who would try and prevent, for example, Minister Louis Farrakhan from speaking at an academic campus, but would also fight for the right of Irshad Manji and other questioners of Islamic theology to speak. An equal standard ensures a real discussion. The problem is that people are afraid of being labeled racist for honestly questioning Muslim theology and the Prophet Muhammed, though Jesus and Buddha are made fun of regularily. (Everytime I walk through Amsterdam I walk past Buddhas placed beside bongs and dildos, and erotic representations of Jesus. Am I offended? Sure. But I would never rob people of thei freedom of expression. We saw what happened when the Prophet was depicted in a newspaper in Holland)

JKhedrup wrote:One of the questions that needs to be asked that does not sit well with the politically correct identity politics paradigm, is why there is a widespread use of terrorism across the Muslim world.

Are you talking about the widespread use of terrorism by the invading forces, or the local resistance groups?

JKhedrup wrote:I didn't say Muslims in general. I very specifically stated the Indian Mujahadeen. Please respect the precision of the words I chose, it was of a specific organization so as to hold the entire Muslim community responsible for the acts of one fundamentalist outfit. (Just as the entire Buddhist community should not be pilloried for the bad behaviour of some Buddhists within Burma).

I'm sorry, I have seen no evidence yet of the bombing at Bodhgaya being an action carried out by the Indian Mujahadeen. Do you have links to any respectable sources reporting this evidence?

In the context of the discussion, Greg (Bombing in Indonesian Buddhist temple), the reasons for the popularity of terrorism as a method within some Muslim organizations.

If you want to condemn drone strikes, the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, human rights abuse in Isreal, and a useless foreign presence in Afghanistan I will be happy to join you. I find all of those issues upsetting and worthy of concern.

But here we are talking about grassroots movements specifically targeting human beings and religious sites with bombs, and to derail that seems disingenuous.

It is really easy for us Western Buddhists to sit back and be politically correct because we live in countries where our lives are not threatened by such militant activities. But our fellow practitioners in many other places in the world are very much at risk.

JKhedrup wrote:In the context of the discussion, Greg (Bombing in Indonesian Buddhist temple), the reasons for the popularity of terrorism as a method within some Muslim organizations.

If you want to condemn drone strikes, the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, human rights abuse in Isreal, and a useless foreign presence in Afghanistan I will be happy to join you. I find all of those issues upsetting and worthy of concern.

But here we are talking about grassroots movements specifically targeting human beings and religious sites with bombs, and to derail that seems disingenuous.

It is really easy for us Western Buddhists to sit back and be politically correct because we live in countries where our lives are not threatened by such militant activities. But our fellow practitioners in many other places in the world are very much at risk.

I'm not seeking to derail anything, it's one thing to point out the parts of a culture (on in this case sub culture, which is what we are actually talking about) that are abhorrent, and another just to wring ones hands about them, and magnify them as if you are pointing out something new or surprising. As to the book, it seems like maybe you are the one not listening to me on that count, as I said I thought the book looked interesting, and my mention of it was due to it's inclusion as part of your argument, rather than anything about the book itself.

I can see your pointag about the lack of real criticism of Islam in some places, it is true that occasionally people would rather go mum than listen to other voices. I think though that by and large this happens other places too, as an example criticism of Israel being labelled as "anti-semitism" is a similar deal. We are just more scared of Muslims right now (maybe justifiably so), so political correctness surrounding Islam seems more egregious. In the town I live in, local pro-israel groups not only tried to shut down a legal boycott, but attempted to use the courts (and where denied) to silence the the pro-boycott voices.

Not being an academic, maybe I just can't see what you are talking about, because in non-Academic life here in the US (from my own perspective of course), there is criticism of islam everywhere you look, most of it shockingly ignorant, a small bit valid and thought-provoking. I live in a smallish hippie city as well.

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

In the town I live in, local pro-israel groups not only tried to shut down a legal boycott, but attempted to use the courts (and where denied) to silence the the pro-boycott voices.

I am glad that they managed to shut it down. That is terrible, and the pro-Isreal lobby does many objectionable things IMO.

Not being an academic, maybe I just can't see what you are talking about, because in non-Academic life here in the US (from my own perspective of course), there is criticism of islam everywhere you look, most of it shockingly ignorant, a small bit valid and thought-provoking.

LOL I am not an academic really, just a BA graduate who does translation work. But thank-you for sharing the perspectives that you hear. Perhaps it is because most of my friends are left of the spectrum politically correct types that I see things the way I do. It is always worthwhile to hear someone else's experience.

So you consider the actions of a couple of deperate fundamentalists terrorism, but you do not consider the wanten destruction of whole countries and their populations as terrorism?

And what of the destruction by occupying forces of places of worship and the danger to the practitioners of Islam? Or is that too politically correct?

Let's put things in perspective: number of innocent people killed in terrorist attacks on Buddhist temples in India and Indonesia by Muslim fundamentalists (zero) vs number of innocent people killed by terrorist attacks by Buddhists in Burma (official toll as reported by Burmese regime 78 dead and over 100,000 forced to flee their homes and currently living in refugee camps).

I don't think political correctness plays much of a role when one just does the maths.

Now if we were to do the same tally comparing deaths by Islamic terrorists vs deaths by coalition occupation force terrorists (in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not going to go into Palestine and Chechenya and...) I am sure the whole concept of political correctness takes a really long walk.

Perspective is really important in these sorts of discussions.

Now this is not to say that some Islamic regimes are not nasty and opressive pieces of work, but even then, a quick look at official death penalty statistics (for 2011) is pretty revealing: China is at the top of the list (having a tally in the thousands, up to 4000 apparently), then Iran (360+), Saudi Arabia (82+), Iraq (essentially a US protectorate, 68+) and the US (43). So... You want to still want to talk about political correctness?

Incarceration rates??? The US tops the list with 716 per 100,000 citizens. The first Muslim country (Azerbaijan) comes in at position number 14 with 413 per 100,000 and the next Muslim country is Kazakstan at position 36 with 295 per 100,000.

So you consider the actions of a couple of deperate fundamentalists terrorism, but you do not consider the wanten destruction of whole countries and their populations as terrorism?

Hardly a couple, Greg- it is far more widespread than a couple. But yes, wanton destruction of populations is terrorism. And I will speak out against it. However, that it not what this thread was about, nor the context of this discussion. As I said, if you want me to speak of the faults of the Western presence in certain Islamic countries, non existent WMD, Isreali human rights abuses I am willing to discuss those, in a thread on that topic. I will codemn those atrocities. The topic of this thread is a bomb in an Indonesian Buddhist temple. Is that not also condemnable?

Let's put things in perspective: number of innocent people killed in terrorist attacks on Buddhist temples in India and Indonesia by Muslim fundamentalists (zero) vs number of innocent people killed by terrorist attacks by Buddhists in Burma (official toll as reported by Burmese regime 78 dead and over 100,000 forced to flee their homes and currently living in refugee camps).

Do you honestly think is this continues no one will be killed? How many people have been killed due to Islamic fundamentalism in the Muslim world itself? Ethnic tensions between Shia and Sunni fundamentalists? Christians? Homosexuals? Islamic fundamentalism has led to many deaths.

Incarceration rates??? The US tops the list with 716 per 100,000 citizens. The first Muslim country (Azerbaijan) comes in at position number 14 with 413 per 100,000 and the next Muslim country is Kazakstan at position 36 with 295 per 100,000.

The US prison system is a sad state of affairs, as is their incarceration rate and disproportionate number minorities in prison who serve longer sentences than their white counterparts.

However, perhaps the lower incarceration rates of Muslim countries will not seem like such a cause for commendation if we take into account, for example, that in Saudi Arabia the following crimes are capital offences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... udi_Arabia.

Hudud: Fixed Quranic punishments for specific crimes.[12] Hudud crimes which can result in the death penalty include apostasy, adultery, and sodomy.[13]

Sometimes execution is carried out using stoning. Sodomy is a capital offence in Iran and other Muslim countries as well.

I mention politically correct because the same LGBT rights supporters who pillory Christian fundamentalists in the US for not supporting same-sex marriage remain strangely silent on the issue of homosexuality being a capital offense in several Muslim countries, and refuse to critique the Islamic scriptural edicts behind these laws.

Want to take refuge in the triple gem in such countries? Too bad- if you are born Muslim such an act is considered apostasy and you could be executed. Even in progressive Muslim countries like Malaysia conversion is not permitted and would result in a jail term.

Terrible as the USA may be in many ways, I have never heard of adultresses being stoned, converts from Christianity being put in prison, or hanging punishment for sodomy.

And what of the destruction by occupying forces of places of worship and the danger to the practitioners of Islam? Or is that too politically correct?

Terrible, but none of those occupying forces would make a theological argument in favour of such atrocities. If such destruction is deliberate that is disgusting and I would call on the person in charge to appear before a human rights tribunal.

However, many of the mosques destroyed in these countries are also due to the Sunni/Shia conflict within Islam. This conflict has reached boiling point in Iraq for example.

India has several mosques stone's throw away from the Bodh Gaya stupa and several important Hindu shrines (despite the history of Muslim conquerors building mosques directly on top of destroyed temples). Would the Islam allow us to construct a temple in the cities of Mecca or Medina? Why not? One cannot understand this conflict simply from a geopolitical or anti-oppression framework. There is a definite theological element here.

Isn't it possible to make a distinction between terrorist acts and military actions to attempt to prevent terrorism? It seems to me that planting bombs in temples or sending suicide bombers or bomb-laden vehicles into mosques and marketplaces is not morally equivalent to military action taken to try and prevent such acts from occuring.

I think that if you say that the acts of terrorists and those who try and disrupt terrorist organisations are morally equivalent then really you just have to accept that terrorism will be a constant threat to everyone from now on.

Sometimes spirituality is a liberation, and sometimes it's an alibi ~ David Brazier

Indian intelligence is still trying to verify and investigate fully, so of course we will have to give the investigation time. But so far there seem no other credible suspects. I will post more information as it becomes available.

JKhedrup wrote:The topic of this thread is a bomb in an Indonesian Buddhist temple. Is that not also condemnable?

Of course it is, but let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Do you honestly think is this continues no one will be killed? How many people have been killed due to Islamic fundamentalism in the Muslim world itself? Ethnic tensions between Shia and Sunni fundamentalists? Christians? Homosexuals? Islamic fundamentalism has led to many deaths.

If I remember correctly I said: "...this is not to say that some Islamic regimes are not nasty and opressive pieces of work..."

I mention politically correct because the same LGBT rights supporters who pillory Christian fundamentalists in the US for not supporting same-sex marriage remain strangely silent on the issue of homosexuality being a capital offense in several Muslim countries, and refuse to critique the Islamic scriptural edicts behind these laws.

Yes, well, I kind of find that unlikely, but anyway...

Terrible, but none of those occupying forces would make a theological argument in favour of such atrocities.

Are you sure? I seem to remember a well known president making some vaguely theological remarks to justify the invasion of Iraq.

India has several mosques stone's throw away from the Bodh Gaya stupa and several important Hindu shrines (despite the history of Muslim conquerors building mosques directly on top of destroyed temples). Would the Islam allow us to construct a temple in the cities of Mecca or Medina? Why not?

Because Mecca and Medina do not have indigenous Hindu or Buddhist populations whereas India has an indigenous Muslim population?

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Konchog1 wrote:Muslims are indigenous to India in the same sense that the Boers are indigenous to South Africa.

Bzzzztttt... wrong. There are Indian people that are Muslims. There are countless Indian people that have voluntarily taken Islam as their religion. The Boers are not Africans. The religion is not indigenous (like Christianity is not indigenous to Europe and America) but many of the people that have decided to embrace the religion are.

jeeprs wrote:Isn't it possible to make a distinction between terrorist acts and military actions to attempt to prevent terrorism?

No, not if the military actions kill countless innocent people too (ie terrorise innocent people).

It seems to me that planting bombs in temples or sending suicide bombers or bomb-laden vehicles into mosques and marketplaces is not morally equivalent to military action taken to try and prevent such acts from occuring.

There is a possibility that if the military occupation forces were not there in the first place that the terrorist actions would not be taking place.

I think that if you say that the acts of terrorists and those who try and disrupt terrorist organisations are morally equivalent then really you just have to accept that terrorism will be a constant threat to everyone from now on.

So you are saying that the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechenya, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Palestine, Tamil Sri Lanka, etc... and the funding of dictatorships in various 3rd world countries are morally superior actions, and that those opposing these actions are morally inferior?